I'm a little confused. I think the player gets to chose what the result is of a 7-9.

With Clerics, I sometimes tie the forgetting of spells into the narrative. I did it once as a 6- hard move.

I suppose I'd just be sad if it somehow went unnoticed, and a player thought, "Oh man! I should have got this earlier!" That can be solved by just speaking up.

I agree it's weird for someone to instantly get 9th Level Cleric Spells, but then, it would be fun to justify in the plot. Also, I did mention a "catch up," mechanism where they would at least gain levels as fast as someone else.

We don't need to compare a Paladin to a Paladin that are both in the same game. If I were a player, though, I would certainly compare who I am with what I "could be." This would bother me personally, as a player, if I didn't notice it. Maybe I'm the only one with that OCD, but, as a player, I'd be sad I couldn't hit the "reset," button on my character... but then, I have min/max tendencies :P

And, there's still the issue of a Half-Elven Bard not being as good at magic as a Human Bard could be... which seem unintentional.

I think I'll just house-rule my way around this one if it comes up, no big deal.

So, I noticed that players that don't take Wizard or Cleric levels early kinda get behind the curve quickly. Half-Elven Bards seem to always have to be at least one level behind their fellow Bards.

This kinda bothers me, as, a player that wasn't playing close attention can end up with a much weaker Advanced Move than someone who just got theirs in a different order. Also, because levels get further apart, a level 4 Paladin must be "stuck in their ways," because they only get a Cleric Spell level after 40 more XP, instead of a level 2 Paladin who would get a Cleric level after 20 more XP.

Also, Fighters don't have this restriction, but Bards share it.

I think I'll ignore this in my game, or just give people a catch-up mechanism, like, every 10 XP they get another Wizard/Cleric level until they come within one of their own level.

dittoed :P

admutt, well put. I agree that fairness is important if things start to "get real," so that the players don't feel saddened.

mease19, I wouldn't assume player vs. player = jerk move. I've had great PvP moments. If it follows the fiction, it can be a lot of fun for all involved. Clearly, an element of PvP is built into the game, otherwise we wouldn't have the -2 to interfere clause. Though, I understand that this is a delicate thing. And, I probably do agree in that this has probably been done poorly as much or even more than it's been done well.

One solution: If it's a situation where one PC is clearly now against the goals and motivations of the group, and makes a move against the group, that PC gets NPCed and goes under the control of the GM. This can help prevent hurt feelings too, because it's not just what the players are used to, GM-created opposition. If the NPC is killed, or stays on "the dark side," that player can create a new PC.

Obviously, this doesn't work for those minor squabbles, or one where there is more of a party split (2 vs. 2, etc...). 

I remember there being a mechanic like this in the AD&D 2nd Edition right around the end of it's life-cycle. Mechanical bonuses to "the party," really help add a sense of cohesion.

I still feel like the rules are a little odd and confusing. I can see the confusion. We might want a clarification/example in the next edition about PC vs. PC stuff.

I'm going to talk from here on out about this, simple-blandly narrated (for clarity) scenario:

"One PC stabs at another PC. The defender steps back."

So, according to the explanations by Archangel and Sage...

From the perspective of the attacker, it follows the logic of the rest of the game. He rolls his Hack and Slash and deals damage to the "enemy," if successful.

But, from the perspective of the player taking the hit, he did not ignore the Soft Move or roll a 6-, so it's odd that he takes what would normally be a Hard Move, suffering damage. Though, in this case, it's not really a Hard Move, just a result of the successful roll of another PCs Hack & Slash. It's also double-strange from the victim's point of view because that victim can only Interfere, and can't Defy Danger.


It seems you could also run it this way and still, "follow the rules," as is.

"One PC stabs another at PC. The defender steps back."

The attacker does not roll Hack and Slash. The defender rolls Defy Danger. The attacker "Interferes" with the dodging.  Perhaps this way would actually make more sense if the defender has no intention of "fighting back."